Noam Murro | 98 mins | streaming (HD) | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R
Taking place before, during, and after the events of Zack Snyder’s surprise-hit graphic novel adaptation 300, belated follow-up Rise of an Empire tells the wider story of what was going on in the war between Greece and Persia. In particular, it follows Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton) as he commands a series of sea battles against the Persian navy, led by Artemisia (Eva Green).
300 was known from the off as a case of style over substance, both in terms of its visuals (the ultra-heightened colour palette at a time when extreme digital grading still felt new; the slow-mo/fast-mo/etc editing) and its storytelling (taking an historical event and ramping it up to the level of legend; dialogue more concerned with being readily quotable than sounding plausible). But it committed so thoroughly to that methodology that it kind of worked, in its own ridiculous way. It helped that, as I said, it was all quite new — 300 was a visual revelation back in 2007, and that was enough. Now, plenty of films look like that, leaving 300 2 in search of a hook. It doesn’t find one.
It doesn’t help that the CGI this time is terrible, making the whole thing look like a computer game with real people occasionally dropped in. It’s not just the low quality of the graphics (calling them “effects” or “visuals” seems generous), but the way the camera moves and frames things. And the gore is gorno-level outrageous. In one shot early in the film, we see a horse rise up in fright, slow motion emphasising how its whole body is lifting into the air on its hind legs, its front hoof flailing, its eyes wild… before it comes crashing down, its hoof smashing into a grounded man’s head, the not-even-vaguely-plausible CGI blood exploding everywhere — in slow motion, of course.
It’s also terribly obvious that it was shot for 3D. I’m not normally one to criticise a film for that — I think when some critics know a film is being released in 3D they see that in its shot choices, even if they’re perfectly valid choices for 2D. But Rise of an Empire screams that it was made for 3D from the start, with all manner of things thrust towards the camera, usually in slow motion, and the constant explosions of blood (to call them squirts or sprays implies a more liquid-like quality than they actually possess) which go nowhere else but camerawards. Presumably the only reason it’s not an 18 for violence is because it’s all so bloody silly.
There is no point discussing or analysing any other aspects of the film. In every respect — from the clunky structure, to the leaden dialogue, to the poor performances, to the cheap visuals, to the fake CGI — this doesn’t feel like the $110 million blockbuster it is, but like a direct-to-Syfy TV movie.
300: Rise of an Empire is available on Amazon Prime Instant Video UK as of yesterday.
It featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2016, which can be read in full here.
Such a disappointing sequel. I love 300, for all it’s inaccuracies and Scottish accents lol (I call it Jason and the Argonauts syndrome!) it’s a great and exciting action film and the integrity and bravery of the Spartans is great. I saw this sequel in the cinema and I HATED it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some people seem to quite like it, which baffles me. I originally had it down for 2 stars, but as I was writing the review I couldn’t think of a single thing I actually liked about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah I agree! It was lame and gratuitous. And I totally agree with your comments on CGI and being a ‘3D movie’. Boo! Hiss! *throws popcorn*
LikeLiked by 1 person
“like a direct-to-SyFy TV movie” OUCH! That’s saying quite a lot, because 9 times out of 10 those SyFy movies are BAAAD, I didn’t think 300 needed a sequel to begin with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, this really is just an attempt to make a bit of cash off something popular. A terrible attempt, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haven’t seen this yet – probably never will after reviews like this one – but it looked like a stinker from the trailers I saw. Its got ‘late cash-in’ written all over it, and like its cinematic cousin Sin City 2 suffered for it with audience apathy. Sometimes you have to wonder how/why films get made (other than to make money, of course). Some projects are so misguided it beggars belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s funny what makes it to the screen and what doesn’t. I mean, of course they develop sequels to anything that makes money, but that doesn’t mean they have to actually make it! I was reading again about the proposed sequel to Gladiator recently (I wonder why…), which really was a batshit crazy idea, so they scrapped it. I reckon it would’ve been better than this, though.
LikeLike
Yeah, agreed. This one was really pretty naff. Oh how the Lionatus has fallen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Er, Leonitus, or however the hell you spell his name. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they’d made it a prequel and imagined some other conflict for Leonidas* and chums to fight in, maybe it would’ve been better. Or maybe it would’ve been just as bad but sullied the first film even more by having the same characters in it.
* I had to look the spelling up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ha yeah it’s not freaking easy to spell!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Themistokles is even worse!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best movie I’ve ever watched.Gorgeous Persians:) Thanks
LikeLike